Orissa

Jajapur

CC/55/2014

Dr.Surendra Nath Mishra - Complainant(s)

Versus

A.G.M SBI Jajpur - Opp.Party(s)

Akhil Mohan Dash

06 Oct 2017

ORDER

IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.

                                                                     Present:      1.Shri Jiban ballav Das , President

                                                                                         2.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member,

                                                                                          3.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.                       

                                              Dated the 6^th  day of October,2017.

                                                      C.C.Case No.55 of 2014

Dr. Surendra Nath Mishra 

At .Narsinghpur, P.O. Kodandapur  

Dist.-Jajpur.                                                                            …… ……....Complainant .                                                                       .

                   (Versus)

 

1.A.G.M,S.B.I,Jajpur P.O/ Dist. Jajpur.

2.C.M.S.B.I,Jajpur,P.O/Dist.jajpur

3.C.G.M,S.B.I,Local head officer at.111, pandit Jawaharlal Neheru Marg,

 P.O/P.S/Dist.Bhubaneswar.                                                                                   ……………..Opp.Parties.    

                                                                                                                                       

For the Complainant:                          Sri A.M. Dash, Advocate.

For the Opp.Parties :                           Sri P.K. Daspattnaik, Advocate.

                                                                                                     Date of order:   06.10.2017.

MISS SMITA RAY, LADY MEMBER.

 Deficiency in banking service is the grievance of the complainant.

            The facts  as per complaint  petition  are  that the petitioner is a service holder who is maintaining his family along with medical expenses and education of his children’s  from  his monthly  salary . That having the financial stringency  in order to repair the residential house the petitioner  has incurred a flood  loan amounting to Rs.2 lakh in the year 2004 . On the strength of agreement  and  as per term and condition of the agreement  to repay the loan amount along with interest  within 120 installments having monthly installments at the rate of Rs.2460/- per month but the petitioner was paying 3,000/-  per month from sept-2010 .  That  it is the  liability and bourden duty of the O.Ps not to debit  any amount from his monthly salary but in the month of June-2014 it is observed that the bank has forcibly deducted Rs.70,000/- from his salary  account  treating the status of the account as  ‘hold’ . On verification it is learnt  from the  O.Ps  that at present the petitioner is a defaulter  for which the petitioner is liable to pay Rs.1,07,560/ towards the increase rate of interest. In this connection the petitioner being  dependent  upon the  monthly salary as well as having  financial strengcy  has stated that when a bank by an agreement is charging  a particular rate of interest subsequently  the  bank can not unilaterally enhanced the rate of interest. In case the O.P is entitled to charge higher rate of interest , as per the clause of interest owing to RBI guide line  it was  not the duty of O.P to deduct the said  higher rate of interest by increasing the installment of repayment schedule of loan but without doing so as well as without informing the petitioner in writing the O.P has stopped the withdrawal  of the petitioner  S.B A/c No.11309044798 for which the petitioner suffered a loss financially in July—2014  only to meet the expenses of  his daughter who is continuing Rajdhani engineering college as an M.B.A student and due to such  negligence of the bank official and for such arbitrary action of the O.Ps  the petitioner has paid Rs1,000/-  as fine at the time of paying the  college due .

            Accordingly finding no other alternative way  the petitioner knocked the door of this fora to direct the  O.Ps to refund the deducted money along with compensation  of  Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony and  financial loss  for  deficiency in service on the part of the O.ps.

            After appearance the O.Ps   filed their written version  taking following stands;

(1)  The case is not maintainable  in eye of law.

(2)  There is no cause of action in favour of the complainant  to file this proceeding against the O.Ps .

(3)  The proceeding is barred by law  of limitation  as per  C.P. Act.

4 That the complainant is a state Govt. employee . As per his requirement the O.P  bank has sanctioned a loan of Rs.2,00,000/-  in favour of the petitioner. It is mutually agreed between the petitioner and O.P that interest will be charged Rs.8.25%   per annum .it is also agreed between the parties that the rate of interest is subject to revision from time to time  In case of any default in payment or any irregularity  in the loan account the  bank reserves the  right to charge higher  rate of interest as deemed  fit and proper  .it was also agreed that the loan amount was to be  repaid on 120 monthly installments at the rate of monthly EMI 2460/- .

“BY executing the loan agreement the petitioner has agreed to abide by different   terms  and conditions  of the O.P.

“that  borrower agrees that if any installment due hereunder is not paid on due date or the borrower fails to maintain the outstanding in the loan account within the drawing power where the loan is granted by the bank as an over drawn limit in the manner set out in clause-5 herein above the agreement of the bank to accept repayment of the said loan, by installments or otherwise ,shall at the option of bank forthwith determine and the whole balance of the said loan/ overdraft account unpaid at the date of such default shall immediately thereupon become repayable to the bank .’

            That presently due to negligence  and irresponsibility of the petitioner for repayment of the outstanding amount the loan account turned to be  bad and doubtful.  As per  present accounting  procedure  followed by all commercial bank as per guide line of RBI,  the loan account of the complainant is now classified as  non performing asset (NPA) of the O.P bank  that to  recover the said loan ,  the O.P bank has adopted due procedure under law for the recovery of its outstanding amount from time to time  .  The complainant has failed to  liquidate the dues , the O.P bank exercised  the power of general lien over the savings bank account of the petitioner .as per the agreement and put “hold”  on the amount lying in the S/B account . Hence the branch deducted Rs70,000 from S/B account and  deposited in his  loan account  to minimize the over due burden in the loan account of the petitioner.

            In the above circumstance the case is not maintainable in eye of law and liable to be dismissed  with cost.

            Owing to the above contradicting statement of both the parties ,On the date of hearing we heard the argument from the learned advocate for both the parties.  After perusal of the record  and documents filed from  both the sides it is observed that it is undisputed fact that the petitioner is a  Govt. service holder and  availed  a loan  amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-   from the O.Ps by way of agreement and as per condition of agreement such loan along with interest  is required to be repaid by the petitioner within 120 monthly  installments  at the rate of EMI Rs. 2460 /-  per month.

2.it is a fact that such EMI was not deducted by the O.Ps from the petitioner  S/B account .  The EMI was deposited by the petitioner in the loan account  which was not sufficient due to  higher rate of interest  and in  the result the  outstanding amount was increased  as alleged by the O.P.

3. The  O.P also has taken the  stand  in the written version that the dispute is barred by  law of limitation  as per C.P. Act  . It is our considered view that the cause of action arises on 19.06.14  since the O.P has  deducted  Rs. 70,000/-  from the salary treating the account as “ hold”  and thereafter the petitioner filed the present dispute in  this fora on 28.7.14 . Hence the dispute is not barred by limitation U/s  24 (A) of  C.P. Act 1986.

4. The next point raised by the petitioner regarding enhanced  rate of interest  claiming by the O.P  .In this contest the petitioner has filed the citation and observation of Hon’ble State Commission, kerala(Thiruvananthapuram )  reported in 2000 (1) CPR-180-wherein it is held  that

“ when the bank by an agreement agrees to charge a particular rate of interest on loan then bank can not unilaterally enhance the interest rate and consumer complaint about higher rate of interest charged would be maintainable “.

In case the bank demand the higher  rate of interest as per clause of agreement such agreement is void “ as provided  U/S 20 of  Indian contract Act, `     1872. In support of the contention the petitioner has filed a citation of  Hon’ble  National Commission  of  R.P.no.737/2005 .

The  O.P  also filed the citation of Hon’ble High court of  Kerala, vide W.P.C No.30600/2013 and  Hon’ble  National commission   reported in (2000 (2) CPR-83-N.C , wherein it is held that

“Exercise of general right of lien by the petitioner bank - complainant agriculturist got crop Insurance through petitioner bank- crop failed due to drought and insurance Co. remitted policy amount to petitioner bank- bank exercising its right to lien recovered loan amounts from insurance compensation amount.”

5.  The petitioner mainly alleged that the  O.P  without any notice /prior intimation arbitrarily  hold the salary account  and illegally deducted  Rs.70,000/- from the  S.B  account no.11309044798 and subsequently deposited the same to the loan account, for  which the petitioner suffered  financial loss in July 2014 only to meet the expenditure of his daughter who was  continuing   study of REC   BBSR ,and  for negligence of O.P  official and such arbitrary action of O.P  the petitioner has paid Rs.1,ooo/ as fine with  daughter’s college dues which was extra burden to him.  In this contest it is our considered  view the O.P can recover / deduct or “ hold “ any account of the petitioner / loanee when the petitioner / loanee became a  defaulter in repaying the loan amount but such action of the O.P must be as per law.  When we verified the entire  record  we did not found  a single scrape of paper to establish that the O.P  has taken  proper steps before deducting Rs.70,000/-from  the account of the petitioner .  During  the course of hearing this fora has asked the learned advocate  of  the O.P  regarding any intimation to the petitioner before deducting Rs.70,000/- from the S.B A/C of the petitioner .Thereafter the O.P  filed  a intimation letter which was dispatched though ordinary post. on the other hand the petitioner obtained intimation from the O.P  by RTI application regarding the enhanced rate of interest / outstanding which was  communicated by O.P mention that on 21.6.14 .  The O.P has filed a notice dated  02.06.14  which indicate that such letter has been dispatched on 03.06.14 by ordinary post. In this situation we are unable to  ascertain which date is correct Accordingly  it is our considered view, who debarred the o.ps not to send such notice by Regd post.  Hence it is  cristal clear that  the O.P has tried his label best to manipulate  the documents.  In this contest the petitioner has relied upon the observation of the  Hon’ble U.P State commission reported in 2000-CPJ-2-89,wherein it is held that

“ post office is the agent of sender and not the addressee unless a letter proved to have been delivered sender not absolved of its liability merely by posting a letter by Regd. Post”.

Regarding  notice of  O.P  dt.02.06.14  the petitioner has filed an affidavit  regarding non receipt of the notice ,Where as the O.ps did not filed any counter affidavit  against  such affidavit though  several opportunity are given  by this fora.  In view of the above observation from our side it is poignantly  clear that the O.P  fails to establish that the O.P has intimated the petitioner  before making the salary account ‘hold” for which the  petitioner suffered mental agony and financial loss.

Hence this order

In the result  the dispute is partly allowed against  O.P  on contest.  The O.ps are directed to pay compensation of Rs 10,000/- to the petitioner within one month after  receipt of this order .  No cost.   

            This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 6th day of October ,2017. under my hand and seal of the Forum.